BS: America and the World II

Subject: America and the World II
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 01 - 09:08 PM

Part One of this thread, sadly most perniciously titled, can be found over here. I have modified the title to present a more benevolent thread to those who wish to continue the discussion, which had grown over-long for one thread.

A

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Amos
Date: 03 Nov 01 - 09:09 PM

Oh Clone I pray my careless harm forfend!
Come work thy magic now, and let mybracket end!

Regards,

A.

--- Abracadabra! ---

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 01:18 AM

Amos - Some Americans know a great deal about the world, and I'd say that you are one of them.

Your logic list seems a little odd to me though...

Shall we make a list of the following?

1. Cleanest nation in the world. 2. Most peaceful nation in the world. 3. Friendliest nation in the world. 4. Most reasonable nation in the world. 5. Most modest nation in the world. 6. Most egalitarian nation in the world. 7. Least wasteful nation in the world. 8. Most spiritually enlightened nation in the world.

Now all those are things in which a nation could take rightfully take pride...but which nation? It wouldn't be an easy choice to make would it? So many factors to consider. But it probably wouldn't be any of the major powers, I suspect, for most of those categories I have listed. It would most likely be smaller countries.

On the other hand, deciding who is richest and most well-armed at any given time is a cinch. That's because brute strength is a very easy thing to observe and measure, unlike gentler virtues, which are less noticeable and more subtle.

I mean that not as a criticism of America exclusively, but as a criticism of all major powers in all eras. The Romans were once the richest, the most powerful, and not the most populous. So? The British were once in that position too. So? It makes them noticeable and influential...but does it make them right? Or wrong? Or better? Or worse? Or is it just a passing phase of history?

In 1776 America led the world in social idealism and democratic innovation (except with regard to its horrific treatment of Native American tribes), but much has changed in the interim, and will keep changing.

One thing for sure, whoever is the greatest power at any given time will certainly be resented by the have-nots of its day. It has ever been so. Only when the whole world lives in reasonable equality will that particular problem be solved.

Maybe in a lifetime or two from now...maybe longer.

Remember, slavery was once taken for granted. So was burning people at the stake. Anything is possible...even genuine equality world-wide. I know it's possible. It's just not what most people are presently after...

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Amos
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 01:26 AM

Well, sure LH, its a good point you're after making., The list of points I chose in my post were more or less straight out of the thread. I was underscoring the illogic of the carping which claims both great wealth among nations and having no clue about the world. You don't win at a game you know nothing about. So it was just a tweak at the kneejerkers. As for slavery and witch burning, maybe terrorism should b next on the list. Ours AND theirs.

A

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Kerstin
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 01:30 AM

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 01:35 AM

I'll agree wholeheartedly on that, Amos!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From:
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 02:10 AM

Cleanest nation in the world: in my travels, basically Europe, I would say Spain, at least the northern part I traveled in. Spotless train station bathrooms, which is how I tend to judge a country. Most impressive gardens and vegetables: definitely Hungary. Friendliest people: Ireland. Most impressive engineering and machinery: Czechoslovakia. Most reasonable: Austria. They also have these magic laundries that get your clothes whiter than white and very soft besides. Based on immigrants and visitors to US: most polite: Palestinians. Most cute babies: Iraqi. Healthiest food: Chinese. Worst: Irish. Most hospitable: Uzbek. Best singers: Welsh and South African. Best chemists (chemists used to swear this was true) from Sri Lanka. Best fishermen: Norwegians. Best at making beautiful objects out of common materials: Turks. well, that is all I have observed so far. Oh, I'll add one more..handsomist men: Scotland. Based on limited travel/exposure. Only opinions, not dogma.

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: kendall
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 09:17 AM

Some time back, Guest asked me if I had ever been to a country with a despot in charge? How could I forget Cuba? I was there before the revolution, and, I was quite surprised to see soldiers running through the streets with machine guns. I didn't stay ashore long, nothing there but bars and whore houses. We still have a base there, why?

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 11:28 AM

kendall - The Cubans wonder why too, I can assure you! It's sort of comparable to the Soviets having a naval base in Hawaii at the height of the cold war. Astounding. But there you are. Uncle Sam still has one little piece of Cuba, and they are not going to give it up no matter what, it seems.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 11:58 AM

Amos, thanks for giving this thread a less confrontational heading. To answer your point about death-tolls elsewhere, I made that comparison purely to deal with a question DougR had raised with someone: "were you to lose a loved one, as so many did at the WTC, in your own country ... would (you) feel so charitable about it?"

I was trying to say that many people around the world have lost loved ones through all kinds of atrocities - among which the WTC atrocity is far from the worst. (Whatever Ken Nielson may think - assuming his post is not a spoof.)

My point to Kim remains the same: the fact that you don't know what to do is a pathetic - pathetic - basis for supporting the present bombing. And if you think it somehow has protected you from any further strikes, then you, for one, must have your head in the sand.

As McGrath and others have said, it is actually going to make things worse. Extremists will now be queueing up in their thousands to die in their misguided cause, and there's nothing you can do to stop them, whort of putting an armed guard on your fresh air.

On the point about aid, Kim, I have said elsewhere that America gives less overseas aid than several less-rich countries, and is the meanest of all the developed countries in percentage terms - donating one tenth of one per cent of GDP. I would have thought, Kim (and Sharon A), that there are limits to how far you can dine out on that level of generosity.

Yes, the Taliban no doubt got their hands on some of that aid, but who created the Taliban? You may remember that when America disengaged from Afghanistan, after training the mujahadeen,Saudi Arabia - which had bankrolled the mujahadeen - stayed.

It was Saudi Arabia (with Pakistan's support) that created the Taliban. It was Saudi Arabia that bombarded former soviet states with copies of the Koran, and funded Islamist extremists to undermine those former communist regimes.

And which countries prop up the brutal and repressive dictatorship in Saudi Arabia, and shelter it from any risk of democracy breaking out? America and Britain. Saudi Arabia happens to buy quite a lot of arms from America and Britain - seven billion dollars worth last year, for instance. We could never get that kind of business from Afghanistan.

Bin Laden is a Saudi. Most of the hijackers were Saudi. It was Saudi Arabia (and patently NOT Afghanistan) that funded the Taliban. It would make more sense ro bomb Saudi Arabia than to bomb Afghanistan, if the first aim is to prevent more WTC atrocities.

Oh, and one other thing. When America, through brute force, has finally achieved total control over the poorest country on earth, guess which dountry it will run a pipeline across, to secure its access to the world's biggest oil reserves (in the Caucasus)?

For Americans like Ken Neilsen (and unlike Kendall, and the many others who are prepared to view the world from more than one perspective) that question may be unreasonably tough, so here's a clue: it's got to be either Iran or Afghanistan.

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 12:13 PM

Yes, that is almost certainly the real plan behind the present fiasco. Now that the American public is sufficiently upset to support a lengthy foreign war, that plan can go ahead, but it will benefit virtually no one except a few people in very high places.

The thing that I can't figure is...they are already rich beyond imagination, so why do they want more?

I wonder if G.W. actually knows the whole score, or if he is just being taken along for the ride, like the general public he presumeably represents?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 12:30 PM

I would guess that in view of his family's business interests, GW knows the score, George (Little Hawk).

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Amos
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 12:39 PM

How benefit no-one? If that oil line were in place, wouldn't it produce a large amount of wealth in the area just through the service contracts? Wouldn't the oil itself produce value to those who used it in the area? Port industries mean jobs -- long term ones. And who is being paid for the oil rights? If the country who sits on the oil becomes wealthy, doesn't it follow that there will be lots of wealth circulating through the region?

UNOCAL has said they won't build it because they rely on and need a stable government in the area. Sure, they're being self interested. But isn't that agenda to the interest of the entire region, all its occupants, and its children?

Let's not be blind to the benefits of capitalist enterprise, as well as to its negative traits.

A

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: heric
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 01:20 PM

Bombing won't help much, and may hurt a lot. Peaceful diplomacy won't help much. Can't make the whole friggin world be nice to each other, and to us. Could ask our reps to be nicer, I guess, then what? Peace and love all over? Sucks. I don't feel a new renaissance of peace and love coming on. I'm sorry to refer you to this article:

Beijing produces videos glorifying terrorist attacks on 'arrogant' US http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$431SABQAAB2BBQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2001/11/04/wchin04.xml&sSheet=/news/2001/11/04/ixhome.html

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 01:30 PM

Fair point again, Amos. Only problem is, the region in question is unstable and potentially hostile to western interestes, hence Uncle Sam has to go in first with long-stick bombing etc first.

If taking out terrorism was the first priority, Syria and Saudi Arabia would be getting hit a long way ahead of Afghanistan. Instead of which, Saudi Arabia is America's best friend in the region.

If I was an American, I'd be hopping mad at such cant and hypocrisy going on in my name. As it happens, I'm British - so the toadying Blair is all I get to be mad at.

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: heric
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 02:00 PM

Fionn: I'm listening to you and accepting a lot of what you say. But I can't swallow all of that last post. I know this will piss off many but I do believe that the U.S. is not hitting "Afghanistan," per se. The stated objective is to topple the Taliban, a regime without international recognition or legitimacy, and allow a government of some legitimacy to be established, while bin Laden and a few followers are captured or killed. I am still accepting that as the true objective, despite the horror of bombing raids. I am coming to the belief that massive ground troops are the answer.

Too many people around here (if not you, personally) easily accept that U.S. government officials (Executive Branch? Senate?) saw the towers collapse and said "Good. Let's go get us some bubbling crude." They're not smart enough or efficient enough for such instant cunning. I'm not saying they are not hypocritical, cunning, self-serving. But you utlanders may not fully appreciate that the U.S. government was specifically designed for inefficency.

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 02:12 PM

What about the 100 people killed in the Jerusalem hotel bombing, of two soldiers kidnapped from the streets and then hanged from trees.
But of course the terrorists won then.
The hated enemy [the British] withdrew and the state of Israel came into being.
For many years Israel was run by people that had taken part in terrorist activities.
I am not trolling or flaming, this was posted to say that if terrorists have won once others are bound to try.

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Amos
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 02:14 PM

Well, good point. The lesson to draw from that is to turn things around and make it clear that terrorists are losers.

I think that's what we are trying to do, in spite of all the aspersions about hidden agendae.

A.

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: kendall
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 02:17 PM

Point of fact, Bin Laden is not a Saudi anymore. His citizenship was revoked.

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: DougR
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 02:43 PM

Oh, I don't know, Fionn, it appears to me you do a pretty good job of trashing the U. S. too. Actually, I think you are very good at it.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: kendall
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 04:08 PM

Doug, what is ther difference between "trashing" the USA, and telling the truth?

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Greg F.
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 04:59 PM

Easy one, Kendall, as far as Doug is concerned- if the truth reflects poorly on the kindly, good ol' U.S. of A. what never done no one no wrong, its trashing. Don't never let facts get in the way of a good, patriotic story.

But then, there are no such things as facts for Doug, if they are at odds with his own opinions.

Best, Greg.

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: GUEST,CarolC (not getting her cookies)
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 05:15 PM

Mary Garvey, I will definitely have to agree with you on Wales, South Africa, and Scotland. And that's just from my limited armchair traveler's perspective.

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: DougR
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 05:21 PM

Ho, hi, Greg, you're back, I see.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 06:57 PM

Interesting perspective, Hurricane...

And Amos, yes, you're right that there would be a lot of peripheral benefits to various of the locals if the West got those pipelines in...a mixed picture, as usual.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 07:04 PM

"Trashing" something surely must imply doing some damage to it. Insofar as criticism is aimed at identifying things that are wrong, that is a step towards fixing them, and making things better. The precise opposite of "trashing".

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 09:44 PM

You're right Kendall - thanks for that correction.

I,hurricane, I'm in tune with your post, except to add that it would be a mistake to destroy the Taliban before first sorting out what will fill the vacuum. If the Northern Alliance finish up with a share of the influence, that will be disastrous. They are hated by Pakistan, and by most Afghanis.

Also Northern Alliance influence would mean increased influence in the region for Turkey. Fear of Turkey extending its influence was one of the reasons that Desert Storm stopped so far short of Baghdad. (Turkey, and to a lesser extent Iran, would have rushed to fill the vacuum if Saddam had been taken out.)

Anything that risks putting Turkey and Pakistan on opposite sides of an argument could end in tears big-time. The former is a major military power, with the second biggest army in NATO. The latter might feel compelled to invoke its nuclear options, if ever the chips were down. (The development of which Pakistan can resume uninhibited, now they have been given such favourable trading status by the USA.)

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 10:26 PM

As to whether Bin Laden is a Saudi or not...well, if he was born there he's a Saudi, whether or not the current government there has revoked his citizenship. He's now a banished Saudi, technically speaking. They can say he's not a Saudi anymore if they want to, but that's just downright silly. You cannot unmake someone's origin of birth. Why do people take the pronouncements of a civil government as if they fell from the lips of God? Governments do not own their citizens...but they sure like acting exactly as if they did, I've noticed.

(the above should not be construed as moral support for Osama, just a healthy dose of skepticism as regards the supposed infallibility of popes, mullahs, and secular governmental authorities in general...)

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: DougR
Date: 04 Nov 01 - 11:42 PM

No, McGrath, "trashing" does not imply doing something damaging to something. It means consistent carping, bitching, finding fault with something. You never miss an opportunity to criticize the U. S. That's your priviledge, of course. Some Mudcatters who live hear in the U. S. eat it up, I just happen to be one Mudcatter who does not. I thik, were you to research the threads I have posted, you would not find me criticizing even one time the country you have chosen to call home. That is not because I feel you live in a "perfect" country.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: GUEST,McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 01 - 07:19 AM

I think if you check back Doug, you'd find I've said a lot of things indicating affection for America and Americans. Not too much indicating affection for the American government, true enough. (Though I once even started a thread specifically headed http://207.103.108.101/thread.cfm?threadid=36106&messages=38#498823>BS: Bush gets it right! - and I wasn't being sarcastic either.)

But I feel the same about this country too. I love all kinds of things about it, (not everything, but that applies everywhere) but I'm not too keen on the government. Even less keen on the previous government, but that's just a matter of degree.

As I've said before, if you are talking about a fragile person, it may be best to hold off on the criticism. You might do better to concentrate on praising them for the good things they do, and leave the mistakes unspoken. But I don't think that it makes sense to put the richest and strongest country that has ever been in that category.

If people ever stop criticising America for not living up to its best ideals, it'll mean they've given up on it. If Americans ever stop doing that, maybe it would be time for the rest of us to do just that. But they won't, thank God.

"Trashing" to me indicates that something is merely rubbish, garbage, and to be treated as such. Essentially that's what we do if we stop thinking it worth criticising.

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: kendall
Date: 05 Nov 01 - 10:58 AM

Folks, we have beaten this bag of bones to death. No one has changed his/her mind, and, we are just wasting band width. I'm out of here.

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: GUEST,Kim C no cookie
Date: 05 Nov 01 - 04:52 PM

Fionn, please quote where I said "I support the bombing," because I don't recall having said those exact words.

I really don't know what to do. Please excuse me for being ignorant. I'm sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: DougR
Date: 05 Nov 01 - 05:02 PM

Makes sense to me, Kendall! I'm outta here too!

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 05 Nov 01 - 05:10 PM

OK, Now we can talk about Kendall and DougR!!!

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Nov 01 - 05:57 PM

Please correct me if I'm wrong McGrath, but it looks to me like the difference between what you're doing and 'trashing' with regard to the US, is that you are trying to make a positive difference through constructive criticism. As opposed to 'trashing' which is criticising or cutting someone or something down just for the sake of it. (Or for the fun of it.)

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 05 Nov 01 - 07:03 PM

Well that's how it's meant anyway. There's a passage from Chesterton I'm fond of, talking about patriotism.

"My country, right or wrong" is a thing no patriot would think of saying except in a desperate case. It is like saying, "My mother, drunk or sober." No doubt if a decent man's mother took to drink he would share her troubles to the last; but to talk as if he would be in a state oif gay indifference as to whether his mother took to drink or not is certainly not the language of men who know the great mystery...

"The first of all the marks of love is seriousness: love will not accept sham bulletins or the empty victory of words. It will always esteem the most candid counsellor the best." (From A Defence of Patriotism in The Defendant, published 1901.)

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Amos
Date: 05 Nov 01 - 10:58 PM

Trashing, or carping criticism, has certain hallmarks: it does not balance justly both sides of the record, and it tends to find more fault than particular acts may call for; it has the carrier-wave of intention behind it to reduce something to nothing, to make the target as wrong as possible. Constructive criticism, conversely, tends to balance faults with positive actions, to limit itself to specifics rather than leap to negative generalities or global condemnations of whole classes without differentiation (for example "the government") and seeks better solutions rather than just pointing fingers.

This is basic vocabulary, guys!!

A.

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: CarolC
Date: 05 Nov 01 - 11:01 PM

According to whom, Amos?

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: heric
Date: 05 Nov 01 - 11:50 PM

Yeah, it sounds like you're writing your own dictionary, Amos, but it works well enough for me. And I think the environment here invites McGraw's commentary as part of the specifically named "Mudcat Community." He trashes/constructively criticizes his own "tribe" as much as any other, which I think is the easier test.

But I wanted to take advantage of Amos' last post to clarify something I said above which I wish I had made more specific: I said "I'm not saying they are not hypocritical, cunning, self-serving. " I meant to say "I'm not saying there is no inner clique of hypocritical, cunning, self-serving power brokers."

There. The record is intact.

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: heric
Date: 06 Nov 01 - 12:00 AM

I think that constructive criticism is best served up with positive observations to allow its intended effect to seep in to the intended recipient without raising resistance, but that's just a bit of constructive chicanery, or tact, and it's certainly not part of mudcat protocol, either.

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Amos
Date: 06 Nov 01 - 12:12 AM

Well, here's the American Heritage definti9on of "trash" as a verb:

b. To wreck or destroy by or as if by vandalism; reduce to trash or ruins. c. To beat up; assault. d. To subject to scathing criticism or abuse; attack verbally: "The . . . professor trashes conservative . . . proposals as well as liberal nostrums" Michael Marien

Although it is true i was speaking from my own sense of Life 101, basic skills and vocabulary, a lot of what I was saying is encapsulated in that definition. Compare con•struc•tive (kún-strîk2t*v) adj. 1. Serving to improve or advance; helpful: 'constructive criticism.' and likewise carp•ing (kär2p*ng) adj. 1. Naggingly critical or complaining. carp2ing•ly adv.

carp 1 (kärp) v. intr. carped carp•ing carps 1. To find fault in a disagreeable way; complain fretfully.

There will be a test,

A.

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Deda
Date: 06 Nov 01 - 12:18 AM

Some days you're the windshield, some days you're the fly. Sometimes the good old USA looks like the wellspring and fountain, or at least the respository of everything good -- generosity, justice, democracy, meritocracy, liberty, equality, the rule of law, boundless opportunity, the goldineh medina, where anyone can become a millionaire and any kid could be the president. Other times it looks like the late Roman empire--lazy, corrupt, greedy, arrogant, stubborn, selfish, sinking in a kind of moral quicksand.

We have hitched our wagon and pledged our loyalty to Israel, for many reasons. Here are a few: (1) we recognize that our deepest cultural roots are in the Old Testament, and the stories about Moses and exodus and the land of Canaan and the covenants are a very profound piece of how we have defined ourselves, historically. (2) Israel was founded in 1948 following the Holocaust; how could we say no? (Just to inject a little perspective: six million Jews died in the Holocaust. At THIS time, over fifty years later, there are only approximately 14 million Jews in the world, according to the NYTimes.) (3) Israel is a democracy; it struggles to uphold and stand for all the western political and social values that we cherish, unlike any other middle eastern country. No one in Israel has ever been stoned for adultery, or lost a hand for theft, nor even had a harem; no one has handed absolute political power on to a son, at least not in modern history. (4) Millions of politically active and engaged and visibly participating, patriotic Americans have relatives in Israel--myself included.

The situation that the Palestinians are in is painful and terrible, and it is not all their fault. Neither they nor the Israelis seems to be able or willing to stop hating and fighting each other.

Until or unless there is some resolution of the problems in Israel, it is very hard for me to see how we will ever see peace. I am sorry I can't spend as much time as I'd like participating in this gabfest, but I thought i'd toss in my 2 denarii's worth. Well, this may not be worth a full 2 denarii, which I think was roughly a day's wages for an ancient Roman.

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Peter K (Fionn)
Date: 06 Nov 01 - 07:56 PM

Deda,for Palestinians unfortunate to have lived in Israel these past 50 years, the situation has been particularly "terrible." So much so that it's not reasonable to use "democracy" and "Israel" in the same breath. Apologies if you appreciate this already - from your post, it wasn't absolutely clear.

Kim, if that's what you think, what does it matter what particular words you used to say it? If you're against the bombing, at least until some sensible response can be devised, I'm delighted to hear it, and I owe you a big apology. Are you against the bombing?

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: GUEST,colwyn dane
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 08:12 PM

Stalin toyed with the idea of creating 'a Jewish California' in the Crimea but he soon gave preference to
the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine - a Socialist state, which, as he saw it, would become an advanced
satellite of the USSR in the Middle East and enable Moscow to expand its influence forward in this oil-rich region.
Of course it didn't go according to his plan but if he had opted for the Crimean idea we would probably now be discussing the tensions between Russians,Ukranians and Jewish settlers or would we? Ah! such is history.

CD.

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 08:25 PM

Stalin toyed with any number of bizarre ideas. That sounds like one of his milder ones. Hitler toyed with the idea of deporting the Jews to Madagascar, I've heard. He was also planning to raze Moscow to the ground and leave nothing but a desert where it had once been, but did not get the chance to do so...due to the heroism of hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers in the terrible winter of 1941-42. When you've got opponents like Stalin and Hitler fielding vast armies against each other, any horror becomes possible.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Troll
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 08:35 PM

Of course, the little fact that the Muslim world (of which the Palestinians and a part) has been trying to destroy Israel for 50 years has no bearing on the problem.
Nope, the Israelis are just plain prejudiced against the Palestinian people. I mean, they get all in an uproar just because some suicide-bomber blows up a busload of kids.
Really! They're so rigid and uptight, it's no wonder no one likes them. Imagine wanting to defend your country.
Outrageous!

troll

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: CarolC
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 08:44 PM

That's a tricky one, though, isn't it troll? That's what the Palestinians are trying to do as well (defend their country). It's pretty unfortunate that the Israelis' country occupies the same ground as the Palestinians' country. I wonder how people like you and me would respond if we were told to give up our homes so the aboriginal Americans could have their land back?

I'm not saying Israel shouldn't exist, but I think it's a bit unfair to point fingers at only one side in that scenario.

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Wanderer
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 08:47 PM

I rather think the Palestinians might be talking about "wanting to defend their country" too.

But why is this thread called America and the World instead of America in the World?

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Amos
Date: 07 Nov 01 - 10:09 PM

Mea culpa. I named it that as an extension and upgrade to an earlier thread called "America The World hates You..." or some such codwallop. There is nothing grammatically wrong with America "and" the world. It's better than "America Or the World", or "America Over the World", or "...under the world" or "...beyond the world", wouldn't you agree?

Subject: RE: BS: America and the World II
From: Kim C
Date: 08 Nov 01 - 11:57 AM

Well, Fionn, that's just the thing. I don't know.

I try always to see all sides of the story and sometimes this makes for a good deal of indecision on my part.

I don't want the bombing to be going on, no. No way. It seems pointless to me since the Afghans themselves are not the enemy, and they have so little to begin with.

On the other hand, I think the despotic Taliban government is wrong too. It seemed like just when Afghanistan was starting to have something of a stable society, they took it all away in the name of religious extremism. And now they harbor a man they consider more valuable than all the Afghans put together.

I don't get it. I really, truly, just don't get it. And you can call me facile or pathetic for it if you want, but that's the God's honest truth.

Trying bin Laden in a court of law was the best option, I believe. But the Taliban wouldn't hear of that. They asked for evidence, we gave them evidence, and when their few allies agreed that the evidence was viable, they still wouldn't hear of it.

How do you reason with someone who doesn't want to be reasoned with?